Hayes v. Lufkin
| Decision Date | 26 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21939.,21939. |
| Citation | 147 Minn. 225,179 N.W. 1007 |
| Parties | HAYES v. LUFKIN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Olin B. Lewis, Judge.
Action by Kate Borland Hayes against Harry M. Lufkin. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Order affirmed.
In this, a malpractice case, the evidence stated in the opinion was sufficient to support a verdict charging a physician with negligence in administering the X-ray treatment to a patient suffering from eczema. C. D. & R. D. O'Brien, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Lancaster, Simpson, Junell & Dorsey, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for malpractice. Plaintiff had a verdict for $6,200, reduced by the court to $4,500, and defendant appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
[2] The assignments of error which were argued present but one question, viz.: Did the evidence establish defendant's alleged negligence? In considering the evidence we are guided by the rule that a physician is only bound to exercise such reasonable care and skill as is usually exercised by physicians in good standing in their profession, and have assumed that the rule applies to the treatment of disease by the application of X-rays. Henslin v. Wheaton, 91 Minn. 219, 97 N. W. 882, 64 L. R. A. 126, 103 Am. St. Rep. 504, 1 Ann. Cas. 19;Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256;Coombs v. King, 107 Me. 376, 78 Atl. 468, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1121;George v. Shannon, 92 Kan. 801, 142 Pac. 967, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 338; Gore v. Brockman, 138 Mo. App. 231, 119 S. W. 1082;Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46, 141 S. W. 917.
[1] In October, 1918, plaintiff went to defendant's office for a medical examination, in the course of which defendant discovered that she had eczema on both ankles. He advised the X-ray treatment of the disease, and began to give it in November, 1918. The patches of eczema were exposed to the X-rays six times in all at intervals of two or three days. Defendant testified that the left ankle was exposed for treatment on four occasions only, and the right ankle on each of the six occasions when treatment was administered, and that on the first four occasions both ankles were exposed to the rays at the same time. The parties differ in their testimony as to the duration of the exposures. Plaintiff testified that they continued for 20 minutes, and defendant that they lasted from 10 to 15 minutes. It was testified that when the human skin is exposed to the rays for a sufficient length of time a condition somewhat similar to sunburn is developed, technically known as a reaction, and indicating, where eczema is being treated, that the rays have taken effect. After each treatment defendant looked for a reaction, but saw no evidences of it until after the final exposure. A little later the evidences of a reaction became pronounced, for on December 12, 1918, plaintiff's left ankle was blistered and ulcerating. Thereafter, and until January 21, 1919, defendant treated her for the sore on this ankle, which quite clearly was the result of a burn caused by exposure to the X-rays. On the last-mentioned date she dismissed him and consulted another physician, Dr. Carlaw, of Minneapolis. Defendant testified that when plaintiff left him there was an open sore on her left ankle about two inches in diameter, and that her right ankle was free from eczema and uninjured by the six exposures to the X-rays. Dr. Carlaw continued to dress the sore until the latter part of March, 1919, when he had plaintiff taken to a hospital and removed a quantity of scirrhous or dead tissue from her ankle and also removed part of the Achilles tendon. He testified that the dead tissue was the result of an X-ray burn. The sore did not entirely disappear, and in January, 1920, plaintiff had to undergo a second operation for the removal of more dead tissue. At the time of the trial the wound had not yet healed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial